Observation 19338: Hydnum rufescens Pers.
When: 2008-09-02
No herbarium specimen

Images

38875
Copyright © 2009 J.H.
38876
Copyright © 2009 J.H.
38877
Copyright © 2009 J.H.

Proposed Names

-30% (2)
Recognized by sight: Found under Aspen
Used references: Mushrooms Dynistified
91% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Just the kind of info I needed thanks
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-04-01 20:30:34 CEST (+0200)

I see there is differences and yes I agree that this one is not R. repandum for the trees it was growing under were not pine or spruce but aspen…….next time I find it I will have to examin it some more…..but I can’t measure the spores.
I have some dried ones for eating but I think I will keep them for a herbarium or some thing…….

Always a matter of opinion
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-04-01 10:07:47 CEST (+0200)

These hedgehog mushrooms are sometimes hard to tell apart, and maybe calling all of them repandum is the proper thing to do – if they are interfertile and intermediate forms exist?

For me, H. rufescens is clearly different from repandum. Hydnum repandum grows with spruce and is larger, paler and more fleshy.

Hydnum umbilicatum was described by Peck, and the question is if he knew that it was different from rufescens – and yes, I think he did!
Peck described a Hydnum sulcatipes, that is now regarded a synonym to rufescens.
Hydnum umbilicatum was supposed to be a very small mushroom and “umbilicate”. The type material has large, globose spores (7−9 μm).
Hydnum rufescens has smaller, broadly ellipsoid spores (6−7 x 7−8 μm),
and the newly described Hydnum ellipsosporum (has darker, flattened spines) more elongated spores (5−7 x 8−11 μm).
Well, these three rufescens-forms have been recognized and proposed to be regarded as different species by Huhtinen & Ruotsalainen in Karstenia 2006.

It would be interesting to know if collections from BC are the same as the european ones. If so, this ought to be H. rufescens..

I’m sure there are more than one species in USA too.
Maybe you don’t have rufescens at all in the west, and you have a wider concept of umbilicatum that I have been aware of? And what does Hydnum washingtonianum look like?
http://www.mykoweb.com/CAF/PDF/Hydnum_umbilicatum.pdf

same species?
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-04-01 00:47:56 CEST (+0200)

These species are said to be the same species some times.

Still edible
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-03-12 08:21:42 CET (+0100)

Young and fresh ones are OK if you plan to eat them, old ones could be slightly bitter.
Debbie described them well, and I’m surprised that it’s not known in the area. Hmm… I beleive there are some obses on MO where it’s called Hydnum umbilicatum.

It is still edible Right?
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-03-12 04:10:38 CET (+0100)

it tastes good raw

spine attachment is adnexed or almost free in rufescens…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-03-11 22:32:37 CET (+0100)

decurrent in repandum, or so I learned thru a little internet research.
Thanks Irenea, it’s a new sp. on me!

rufescens?
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2009-03-11 21:53:06 CET (+0100)

Why rufescens? What is rufescens?

Created: 2009-03-11 21:05:20 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2011-11-06 22:23:20 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 276 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 01:19:44 CEST (+0200)